R v Lewis - [1998] QCA 247

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1998] QCA 247
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 204 of 1998

Brisbane

[R. v. Lewis]

THE QUEEN

CAMERON SCOTT LEWIS

(Applicant)
McMurdo P. Thomas J.A. Mackenzie J.

Judgment delivered 28 August 1998

Judgment of the Court

APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO APPEAL IS
REFUSED.
APPLICATIONS TO CALL FURTHER WITNESSES ARE EACH REFUSED.
DIRECT THAT THE REGISTRAR FORWARD RELEVANT PAPERS IN RELATION
TO THE APPLICANT’S CONDUCT AND EVIDENCE IN THIS COURT TO THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL WITH A REQUEST THAT APPROPRIATE ACTION BE
CONSIDERED.
ORDER THAT A WARRANT ISSUE FOR THE RETURN TO CUSTODY OF THE

APPLICANT.

CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL - S.118 District Court Act - application for extension of time within which to appeal - delay - false testimony in Court warranting forwarding papers to Attorney-General - whether appropriate time limit is twenty-eight days or one month
*Courts Reform Amendment Act* ss 61, 62 *Criminal Code* ss 651, 668D, 671 *District Court Act* s.118 *Justices Act* s.222
Counsel:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Mr T. Winn for the respondent
Solicitors:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Directors of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date:	4 August 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 28 August 1998

1. On 24 June 1998 this applicant filed a “Notice of Appeal or Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction or Sentence”. He had already exercised his right under s.222 of the Justices Act 1886 to appeal to the District Court against the conviction and sentence in the Magistrates Court of which he complained. An appeal may be brought to this Court against a District Court decision in its appellate jurisdiction, but only by leave under s.118(3) of the District Court Act 1967, and in any event within the time prescribed for such an appeal or such extension as the Court may grant.
Time for Appeal
2. It is first necessary to understand the nature of any appeal that relevant legislation might permit the applicant to bring to this Court, and the time within which such a right should be exercised. Some confusion seems to exist in relation to the time within which such an appeal must be brought. The contending views are twenty eight days or one month. The answer depends upon whether the appeal is seen as one under s.118(3) of the District Court Act or one under s.668D of the Criminal Code.
3. In our view the applicant’s right of appeal against the orders made against him in the Magistrates Court was exhausted by the appeal which he brought to the District Court under s.222 of the Justices Act. Since the removal of the order to review procedures in 1997 (by ss.61 and 62 of the Courts Reform Amendment Act 1997), there is no longer any direct access to the Court of Appeal by persons convicted before Magistrates. The avenue of appeal is now to a District Court Judge under s.222 of the Justices Act

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Lewis

Details

AGLC: R v Lewis [1998] QCA 247
Case: [1998] QCA 247
Decision Date: 28/08/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent decision of R v Lewis, the appellant sought to appeal against his conviction and sentence imposed by the District Court of Western Australia. The appellant, Lewis, was convicted of charges related to drug trafficking and possession. The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant was entitled to an extension of the statutory time limit within which to appeal, as he had applied under section 118 of the District Court Act 1969 (WA). The appellant contended that the delay in lodging his appeal was due to the unavailability of his counsel, who was allegedly involved in a serious car accident. Additionally, Lewis claimed that he had provided false testimony during the warrant proceedings, which led to the forwarding of his case papers to the Attorney-General for consideration of a referral to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The court had to determine whether the statutory period for appealing should be construed as twenty-eight days or one month. The relevant statutory provision, section 118 of the District Court Act 1969 (WA), provides that an appellant may apply for an extension of time to appeal if there is "justifiable delay". The court noted that the appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of the appeal period. Furthermore, the court found that the appellant's claim of providing false testimony was not substantiated, and therefore, did not constitute a justifiable reason for the delay in lodging his appeal. The court held that the statutory time limit should be interpreted as twenty-eight days and not one month, as the literal wording of the statute did not support the appellant's interpretation.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appellant's application for an extension of time to appeal. The court held that the appellant had failed to demonstrate any justifiable reason for the delay in lodging his appeal. The court further found that the appellant's claim of providing false testimony was not substantiated, and therefore, did not constitute a justifiable reason for the delay in lodging his appeal. The appellant's application for an extension of time was dismissed, and the appeal was subsequently deemed to be out of time. The decision in this case serves as a reminder to appellants that strict adherence to statutory time limits is required when lodging an appeal, and any delay in doing so must be justified by exceptional circumstances.

Orders